Should I slow down the counter at the online psychometric test in order to get more time and give more correct answers? [closed]

Question

As part of a selection before an interview for a position in a bank, I need to undergo a psychometric test.

Of course, the aim of the company is to select a single candidate which will fit the best the position : so the aim isn’t to succeed at the test but to get the highest score among all others.

The test is to be completed remotely (I mean from home) on a website. One of the requirement is you have 6 minutes to complete it and there’s so much question that you should answer 2 questions per second in order to finish the test… At that speed, you have course no time to think at which is the correct answer if the result isn’t clear immediately.

One of the characteristics of the test is the time limit is clearly performed on the client side (and that on server side they have just the number of questions answered). Of course, I already know that cheating is bad and that lying at telling it’s the exact thing I want to do (whereas it barely satisfies what I need for my apprenticeship) is bad.
Nothing is spoken or captured through video. It’s only about reading and writing.

But as this is for a computing position in a deprived job market, should I instead expect that almost everyone will perform the trick which allows to slow down the counter and thus multiply the allowed time to complete by 20× since a second as measured on the computer would take 20 seconds in reality ?

After this selection step, I have good reasons to think with my experience I would succeed at the interview (which is the last step as selection).

Answer 1

Don't cheat.

There's a good chance that you'll get caught, and even if you don't get caught, it's bad policy. Trying to build a career on lies will come back to bite you. Even if it doesn't bite you with this position, it will bite you eventually. Better to start as you mean to go on.

You note the possibility that others will also be cheating. That's true. If they cheat and the company is good at catching such things, then those competitors have been eliminated, and your chances get better. If they cheat and the company is not good at catching such things, then the only way to compete is to cheat... in which case it becomes a question of who cheated hardest. It also suggests some unfortunate things about the likely makeup of the employees at the company in question. Going into a job at a bank that's predisposed towards cheaters and corruption is not likely to end well.

Answer 2

Robert A. Heinlein's book "Space Cadet" has some boys being tested for admission to a space academy. One of the tests requires them to put a bottle on the floor, shut their eyes, and try to drop beans into it one at a time by remembering where it is. The hero, Matt, only gets one bean in. Other candidates did much better. He asked what there was to stop people from cheating, and was told "Nothing at all.".

Matt left, grumbling. It did not occur to him that he might not know what was being tested.

The book was published in 1948, so the idea of an easily cheated test as filter to select people who do not cheat is even older than I am.

The test you describe could be looking for either or both of two habits that would be negative for a bank computing person:

1. Cheating.
2. Cutting corners and entering guesses without thinking.

Either of those would result in a lot of answered questions, with more correct answers in the first case. Careful non-cheaters, the ideal bank computing people, would get a few answers but most of those would be correct.

Of course, the bank's recruitment people may just be stupid.

Answer 3

You seem interested in approaching this question without any concerns of the ethics or possible negative impacts of cheating - only with concern over competing against other candidates. I think you've already received good answers and comments that address ethical concerns or negative impacts, so I am going to address the point you seem stuck on. In a comment, you said:

So the point is if they cheat I won’t be able to compete.

Generally, that is not true - if, by "compete," you mean "have a chance at getting the job."

Employers use several tools during the hiring process, for different purposes. But ultimately, it's a combination of these different tools that helps them make hiring decisions. Having THE BEST result from one single selection tool may not be an important factor in the final decision, especially for something like a psychometric test. Generally, these tests are used to weed out very poor candidates and as long as your score is not terrible, there is no significant impact to the process by making it better.

That said, if you're able to get a good score without cheating, then cheating to get a great score may make zero difference in terms of actually getting the job. So - cheating basically leads to no tangible advantage but comes at the cost of huge risks.

Answer 4

That test is designed to put you under time pressure. They've surely designed it so nobody can answer all the questions. And, they've designed it to measure your "fast" thinking (cf Thinking Fast and Slow by Danny Kahneman).

They're surely measuring something other than the absolute number of "correct" answers. If you somehow defeat the time pressure factor, they will know.

You are probably wise not to try to game this kind of psychometric test; certainly not if you don't know what it measures.

As you assess whether this is the company for you, obviously, take into account the fact that their HR people have a green light to use this kind of test on candidates. Is that a good sign about company culture, or bad?